[polishgenius]

Got to be honest, the only fantasy musical I'm looking forward to is Galavant (technically off-topic coz it's a TV show, but shh):

[McLovin]

Saw PLANES: FIRE & RESCUE. Better than PLANES, though that's not saying much.

Saw JACK REACHER. I didn't care for it. Reacher comes across not so much as some badass as much as an insufferable prick. Also the beginning is kinda choppy and hard to follow. Poorly written and edited IMO.

Watched MAN OF STEEL again while folding laundry and doing other chores, because why the hell not?

[Tapper]

Watched Boyhood. The hype is justified; great movie and the effort put into it is amazing.

[Gust Hubb]

Hodejegerne (Headhunters).

Anyone seen it? Loved it.

[Aptorian]

Got around to watching Riddick yesterday. Really liked it. Both in terms of the story it tells and in terms of how it straight up tells the watcher that they are taking the character/universe back to what made it good.

I think the final scene could have been drawn out for a more dramatic effect but it worked. I really hope they make more films after this one.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Saw a few over the weeks:

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE: A rewatch with the kids, who loved it. I loved it too. One of the all-time modern classics. Just a great, great movie. If you don't like it I don't want to know. It would depress me.

JODORWSKI'S DUNE: A movie about the failed attempt of avant garde filmmaker Alejandro Jodorowski (EL TOPO, HOLY MOUNTAIN) to make a movie version of Dune. This was AWESOME. Anyone who loves the book, or sci fi, or movies should see this. It's an excellent documentary, but I wish they went into a little more of the fallout after it fails to secure a production company. Still..a great story, and it needed to be told.

BLUE RUIN: An awesome independent revenge thriller. Very little dialog, but big on the visuals. Wonderfully made and a nicely paced suspense-type subversion of the revenge genre, that uses the "minimal violence for maximum effect" trick perfectly. Unknown actors make things a little more realistic too.

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY: Kinda boring.

Just kidding. It was incredible in every way possible.

[QuickTidal]

Spoilsport Stonny, on 11 August 2014 - 04:42 PM, said:

JODORWSKI'S DUNE: A movie about the failed attempt of avant garde filmmaker Alejandro Jodorowski (EL TOPO, HOLY MOUNTAIN) to make a movie version of Dune. This was AWESOME. Anyone who loves the book, or sci fi, or movies should see this. It's an excellent documentary, but I wish they went into a little more of the fallout after it fails to secure a production company. Still..a great story, and it needed to be told.

Saw this at last years Film Fest, and we loved it. Jodorowsky himself is just so damned charming that you can't help but get excited while watching it, and by the end you WISH that he'd been able to get it made. The tweo things you take away are that if it had EVER been made, it would have been INSANE, and probably iconic. The second thing you take away is that the major people who were behind all the design and preliminary production were the very same people who only a few years later all worked with Ridley Scott on ALIEN.

But yeah. A BRILLIANT documentary.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

QuickTidal, on 11 August 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

Spoilsport Stonny, on 11 August 2014 - 04:42 PM, said:

JODORWSKI'S DUNE: A movie about the failed attempt of avant garde filmmaker Alejandro Jodorowski (EL TOPO, HOLY MOUNTAIN) to make a movie version of Dune. This was AWESOME. Anyone who loves the book, or sci fi, or movies should see this. It's an excellent documentary, but I wish they went into a little more of the fallout after it fails to secure a production company. Still..a great story, and it needed to be told.

Saw this at last years Film Fest, and we loved it. Jodorowsky himself is just so damned charming that you can't help but get excited while watching it, and by the end you WISH that he'd been able to get it made. The tweo things you take away are that if it had EVER been made, it would have been INSANE, and probably iconic. The second thing you take away is that the major people who were behind all the design and preliminary production were the very same people who only a few years later all worked with Ridley Scott on ALIEN.

But yeah. A BRILLIANT documentary.

Best part was when he was talking about going to see Lynch's version in the theater and how he didn't want to but as he was watching he became happier and happier because he was realizing that version was terrible.

I really don't know what the world would be like if an 11 hour surrealist version of DUNE existed.

[McLovin]

Possibly awesome?

Shit why don't they just do it? I mean THE HOBBIT's gonna be like 8 hrs once it's done, fuck it.

[QuickTidal]

McLovin, on 11 August 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

Possibly awesome?

Shit why don't they just do it? I mean THE HOBBIT's gonna be like 8 hrs once it's done, fuck it.

Most of the people Jodorowsky wanted in it are dead, or too old.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

I liked the miniseries too, but the guy who played Paul was not the right choice.

Plus so many movies that were either influenced by the book or Jodorowski and Moebius' storyboards ( gotta see the doc to really know what that thing was like ) have been done since that i wonder if the effect on the audience would be the same. The selfish me says fuck everybody else, i want my art, though.

[amphibian]

I don't know there's the money in a really good Dune adaptation. Yes it's a great seller in the book world, but there's an incredible amount of production costs necessary to make it look good - which likely won't be recouped given previous efforts.

And the underselling John Carter hurts it too. That movie was great, but didn't click well.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

I'm dure there will always be one in the works, scripts kicking around Hollywood, attaching a director here and there to try and raise some investment dollars. But I would want to see Jodorowski's version, specifically, because it would be such a crazy mindfuck. Honestly, if no one here has ever seen EL TOPO or HOLY MOUNTAIN, I highly recommend them both as surrealist masterpieces and benchmarks of avant garde film making.

[Morgoth]

So I watched Iron Man 3 for the first time last night. It was alright. I mean, I had fun and it was not a bad movie; serious plot holes aside. The PTSD angle was surprising, and quite welcome I thought.

I'm a little confused by the Iron Man franchise though. Or more accurately, by the script writers/producer and the choices made. In both 2 and 3 you have excellent actors playing the main villain, but for some reason it was decided to make them more or less the same. Sure, specific actions differ, but in the end they're basically two versions of the same character with pretty much the same goal. When I think about it, they're both fairly similar to main villain of the first Iron Man too.

Also, I don't think Marvel is doing a particularly good job of explaining why many of the issues faced in the individual movies aren't solved by a simple phone call to some of the other Avengers. If the argument is that Thor 2, Iron Man 3 and Cpt. America 2 all take place in more or less the same timeframe it is a little strange that the explosive events of each aren't mentioned in the others. So it makes no sense for Stark not to contact Nick Fury, and it certainly makes no sense for Cpt. America not to solve all the issues in Winter Soldier with a short phone call to Stark. Or even Banner for that matter. Need something destroyed? Call the Hulk.

Surely they have some way of contacting Thor too, and he could have solved everything rather quickly.

[Illuyankas]

Iron Man 3 was set in the 'Thor's stuck in Asgard until he gets tired of his hand' phase before Thor 2, but the others presumably have their own shit going on that is also pretty serious. Still better than 2 though.

Iron Man's main problem is he has a dearth of decent villains - he has a stereotype with ten magic rings, he has a stereotype giant egg and he has about a million dudes in robot suits who are all pretty interchangable. Oh, and alcohol.

[Morgoth]

Then invent new ones! It isn't hard. Shit, I could do a better job writing villains than the writers did in 2 and 3. Especially considering the quality of the actors they had to work with.

[Macros]

inbetweeners 2

If you like the inbetweeners, and liked the first movie, go see the sequel, its fucking ace

if you arent a fan, well, obviously dont bother cause you ain't gonna like this one either.


Real inbetweeners, not knock off american inbetweeners

[McLovin]

Watched LUCY. It was OK, but I found the constant intercutting of random scenes grating. Less of that, more Scarlett Johansson kicking ass please.

[Imperial Historian]

I think the marvel films have really suffered due to crap villains, I mean they've had top quality actors playing most of the villains, but none of them are particularly memorable/threatening (Loki, is probably the best of the performances we've had). I Hope they manage to set up thanos as a decent villain, so far he's been pretty crap. It's a shame that ff4, xmen and spiderman have been sold off, as that catalogue has some of the most memorable marvel villains IMO (Dr doom, magneto, hobgoblin and venom).

Saw expendables 3, pretty much as you'd expect from the others, banderas and Gibson were great, ford really couldn't be bothered and you could tell, plot was nonsensical as usual but I enjoyed it.

[QuickTidal]

I thought Ronan the Accuser was the best Major villain sidekick (to Thanos) we've seen as a main villain since THE FIFTH ELEMENT (Gary Oldman as Jean Baptiste Emanuel Zorg, next to real villain the evil Black Planet).

You KNOW he's not the main bad guy. You KNOW he's just the #1 lieutenant of the main bad guy. And it shows in all the cracks in his armor. Lee Pace NAILED that. It's tough to play the villain who is not the real villain role. You have to come off as too earnest, too goofy, and sometimes too stupidly sure of yourself...it's why both Ronan and Zorg go out in the fashion they do.